Alberta’s energy minister says laid off workers could go to B.C.

[Nobama]

Originally Posted by heep223

a US investor if you bought Facebook the day it started trading publicly (May 18th 2012), you would have returned 252% over that period of time. If you're a Canadian investor, ie. if you also benefited from the USD appreciation over that time, you would have returned 355%.

My point exactly.

Personally reminds me of Enron.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Nobama

My point exactly.

Personally reminds me of Enron.

With all due respect, you are completely out to lunch. Let's just leave it at that because you don't seem to be interested in engaging in an actual dialogue about this. Which is fine.

[PsYcNeT]

Isn't stock price relative to share/offered stock counts as well?

So Company A goes public with an estimated value of 1 million, the owner retains 51% (510,000 value) of stock, and their IPO offers 1 million shares ($1 per, 490,000 available).

Company B has an estimated value of 1 million, the owner retains 51%, but their IPO pegs it at 500,000 shares ($2 per, 245,000 available).

It doesn't mean Company B is worth more than Company A, it's just how they split (or don't split) their stocks at IPO and further after. Google retained high stock value for years by following the Buffett-rule.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by heep223

With all due respect, you are completely out to lunch. Let's just leave it at that.

The recent round of billion dollar valuations in SV has incited this same comparison from many respected commentators. It isn't crazy to think that these companies are hyped merely on the basis of investors wanting a return.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...tech-companies

[Nobama]

Originally Posted by heep223

With all due respect, you are completely out to lunch. Let's just leave it at that because you don't seem to be interested in engaging in an actual dialogue about this. Which is fine.

Ok lets "engage"

Do you think a 355% value increase over 2 YEARS is believable in this company which is essentially a website that advertises?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by peter12

The recent round of billion dollar valuations in SV has incited this same comparison from many respected commentators. It isn't crazy to think that these companies are hyped merely on the basis of investors wanting a return.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...tech-companies

I'll say it again, I'm not disagreeing that Facebook is overvalued. It probably is - I have not done any fundamental analysis nor do I follow FB's analysts very closely. It's pointless to get into an argument about that IMO. Just don't buy tech stocks then.

What I take issue with is this thing about "wall street" laughing all the way to the bank without being thoughtful in any way or having any understanding of the system or creating a rational argument. It's just a bunch of young men yelling at clouds.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Nobama

Ok lets "engage"

Do you think a 355% value increase over 2 YEARS is believable in this company which is essentially a website that advertises?

Well they did buy Instagram during that time, which is the new Facebook, so maybe?

Facebook is the #2 website world wide (second only to Google of course), and Instagram is #24.

Having 2 of the most visited websites in the world seems like a pretty big value booster.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Nobama

Ok lets "engage"

Do you think a 355% value increase over 2 YEARS is believable in this company which is essentially a website that advertises?

So by this same logic, do you think that Google is a sham as well? They're simply an advertising company.

Anyways see my post above, you're still not responding to what I'm actually taking issue with.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well they did buy Instagram during that time, which is the new Facebook, so maybe?

Facebook is the #2 website world wide (second only to Google of course), and Instagram is #24.

Having 2 of the most visited websites in the world seems like a pretty big value booster.

Except for Google, which frankly dominates the online advertising market - as well as data analytics - websites don't really seem to add to productivity numbers or add any value to the economy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by heep223

So by this same logic, do you think that Google is a sham as well? They're simply an advertising company.

Anyways see my post above, you're still not responding to what I'm actually taking issue with.

No, Google actually dominates the advertising market. Something like 99% of their revenue comes from advertising.

His point is that aside from all the hype regarding traffic etc... these companies don't seem to produce much of anything, but are driven by hype, possibly squeezed valuations (in the case of Tesla, there is some real evidence that the stock was squeezed), and very low interest rates.

In terms of innovative technology that actually adds real value to the economy, or employing large amounts of people - thus creating decent consumer surplus - most of these tech companies are huge zeros so far.

In regards to Facebook, I don't know. Up until 2011, it was basically assumed that the company would never be able to compete with Google.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, Google actually dominates the advertising market. Something like 99% of their revenue comes from advertising.

His point is that aside from all the hype regarding traffic etc... these companies don't seem to produce much of anything, but are driven by hype, possibly squeezed valuations (in the case of Tesla, there is some real evidence that the stock was squeezed), and very low interest rates.

In terms of innovative technology that actually adds real value to the economy, or employing large amounts of people - thus creating decent consumer surplus - most of these tech companies are huge zeros so far.

In regards to Facebook, I don't know. Up until 2011, it was basically assumed that the company would never be able to compete with Google.

Facebook, if nothing else, has seemed to gain excellent penetration in foreign markets, which I'm sure helps it's valuation.

Of course I mean foreign markets without China, where all the big NA sites (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Ebay etc.) are Great Firewalled, and replaced by their hugely successful Chinese alternatives (Baidu, Qq, Taobao/Alibaba/TMall respectively).

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by heep223

However some exceptionally sophisticated investors own it, including AIMCO (Alberta's crown corp public investment company that owns 570,000 shares), CPP (Canada's largest investor, who owns 941,000 shares), BCIMC (BC's crown corp public investment company that owns 1.1M shares), Caisse de Depot (Quebec's crown corp which owns 1.4M shares), Norges Bank (entity that manages Norway's sovereign wealth fund which owns 15.3M shares), etc etc.

While interesting, the above is not in the least bit significant. Sometimes when you're dealing with a such a massive entity these types of investments are almost unavoidable due to the circumstances that you posted earlier (family members being invested without knowing). All these aforementioned investments could simply be the product of having a mandate to own x amount of shares based on the industry and their relevance on the exchange. CPP needs X% exposure to tech based on it's investment mandate. So in comes a few billion into the tech sector (which could be an insignificant amount) and suddenly they own a few hundred million of facebook, and apple, and whoever else.

On the flip side The Caisse owning something means about as much to me as you owning something. All spectacular failures (or even bad investments) were generally spectacular because of the amount of money invested by both the large and small investors.

RIM, Nortel, Bre-X, Enron, Lehman, Bear Sterns, Kmart, etc. So many examples of businesses that were not necessarily erroneously valued but had something happen (fraud, bad business, lost market share, etc) that made the prior investment thesis wrong. You could have made a very similar list of major shareholders in these above listed companies the same way you did with respect to Facebook. Doesn't mean anything, much in the same way your list is pretty much meaningless.

[peter12]

Exactly, I probably indirectly own some Facebook shares. These massive funds are just looking for niche value wherever they can find it.

[heep223]

Fair enough. They might even own them directly because they are simply buying the index to fulfill their asset allocation and they can do it directly (as opposed to with fund products) because they're so large.

Regardless. I was more making the point that it's not some evil "wall street" that's benefiting from Facebook's price increase. It's Facebook's investors, including the list above, and grandma. The original poster I was responding to still hasn't answered what I was originally taking issue with.

And the fact that he's comparing Facebook to Enron because Facebook shares have had a great year.....just wow.

[Ozy_Flame]

The IoT and automation economy is coming, and Google and Facebook will be right at the forefront of that. SSO with Facebook profiles for household items (thermostats, fridges, cars, etc.) is not far off; we just have not reached a point of critical mass yet.

Also, Facebook and Google make most of their money from advertising, but what exactly is there right now to replace it? Advertising is not based on a commodity or manufacturing sector, and the delivery streams are such that advertising revenue is generated from among various sectors and industries, most of which are delivered now through digital networks that a majority of "connected" users have access to. Android, particularly, is also the worlds most popular phone - by far - and people have direct access to those ad revenue-generated search queries and click-throughs via Android-based GUI and app integration.

To say Facebook and Google are simple overvalued and based on hype is simply not true; their business models aren't conventional streams that GE has done for 100 years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that GE has heavy integration with Facebook and Google with regards to their advertising, social media, cloud services, big data, MDM, and analytics streams.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The IoT and automation economy is coming, and Google and Facebook will be right at the forefront of that. SSO with Facebook profiles for household items (thermostats, fridges, cars, etc.) is not far off; we just have not reached a point of critical mass yet.

Also, Facebook and Google make most of their money from advertising, but what exactly is there right now to replace it? Advertising is not based on a commodity or manufacturing sector, and the delivery streams are such that advertising revenue is generated from among various sectors and industries, most of which are delivered now through digital networks that a majority of "connected" users have access to. Android, particularly, is also the worlds most popular phone - by far - and people have direct access to those ad revenue-generated search queries and click-throughs via Android-based GUI and app integration.

To say Facebook and Google are simple overvalued and based on hype is simply not true; their business models aren't conventional streams that GE has done for 100 years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that GE has heavy integration with Facebook and Google with regards to their advertising, social media, cloud services, big data, MDM, and analytics streams.

This is like a Wired article. A lot of maybes and what-ifs.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is like a Wired article. A lot of maybes and what-ifs.

Which parts? Please identify them all.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by heep223

Fair enough. They might even own them directly because they are simply buying the index to fulfill their asset allocation and they can do it directly (as opposed to with fund products) because they're so large.

Regardless. I was more making the point that it's not some evil "wall street" that's benefiting from Facebook's price increase. It's Facebook's investors, including the list above, and grandma. The original poster I was responding to still hasn't answered what I was originally taking issue with.

And the fact that he's comparing Facebook to Enron because Facebook shares have had a great year.....just wow.

Agreed, I only quoted that part of your post because it was the only part I didn't think was applicable to the (already off topic) discussion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Which parts? Please identify them all.

What is an automated economy? All parts? Manufacturing? Knowledge economy? We aren't nearly at the point where robots can do much more than put parts together after being programmed to the nth degree of instructions.

Algorithms require constant human input. Diminishing returns, as Jaron Lanier has pointed.

Massive infrastructure costs. Monopolies.

It is so vogue right now to kind of toss your hair, use some Silicon-Valley approved language, and act like the BIG CHANGE IS COMING.

Advertising is just wealth redistribution. That is what these companies do. They have reengineered the internet to make sure that a lot of traffic goes through their data hub, and they reorganize it, and sell it.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

What is an automated economy? All parts? Manufacturing? Knowledge economy? We aren't nearly at the point where robots can do much more than put parts together after being programmed to the nth degree of instructions.

Algorithms require constant human input. Diminishing returns, as Jaron Lanier has pointed.

Massive infrastructure costs. Monopolies.

It is so vogue right now to kind of toss your hair, use some Silicon-Valley approved language, and act like the BIG CHANGE IS COMING.

Advertising is just wealth redistribution. That is what these companies do. They have reengineered the internet to make sure that a lot of traffic goes through their data hub, and they reorganize it, and sell it.

Your rhetoric is veering close to "hoard your gold!" Ron Paul territory.